There’s a new website up on homeopathy, http://www.extrordinarymedicine.org.
Somebody put a lot of skilful hard work into it and deserves special commendations. It’s really well done. This is the kind of stuff we need, especially the list of the “Ten Most Amazing and Convincing Research Studies”. http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org/2011/01/14/extraordinary-evidence-homeopathys-best-research/
The descriptions, like the rest of the site has a rare upbeat tone to it.
I also like the “Frequent False Statements About Homeopathy… and the Truth” section
It’s about time somebody did this one.
Although they’re found elsewhere on the site, to the “most amazing” list, I would like to submit the following for your consideration:
1. An explanation of who Penn State/University of Arizona Emeritus Professor Rustum Roy is, perhaps the best friend homeopathy has ever had in the material sciences.
2. “The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy” by Professors Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell, M. R. Hoover, pub’d in Materials Research Innovations 9:4, 577-608, (2005). This is the first comprehensive review of the physico-chemical literature relevant to homeopathy by top scientists who are notable academics. It’s a hard read, deadly if you’re you’re looking at it lying down, but its notable enough that even though you may have tourblecomprehending it, you ought to take a gander so as to at least not be a totalstranger to it. Don ‘;thesitate to use to use the define command in google forsuch words like “clathrate” and “zwitterion.” Hang inthere with it, it’s a milestone. Here’s a link to the pdf: http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf
3. The Chaplin Killshot. Hailed by Roy as the leading authority on the chemistry of water, the “most amazing” list should include London South Bank University Prof. Martin Chaplin for his milestone article on the physics of homeopathy entitled “Memory of Water” . . on his “Water Structure and Science” web site. In this article is the most significant scientific statement made in support of homeopathy as to whether or not the remedies store and transmit information: According to Chaplin “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” Given Chaplin’s reputation and the prima facie, exhaustive research revealed on his website, this simple statement, in the context in which it appears, is a killshot on the argument against homeopathy. It is a key to one of the greatest the controversies facing Mankind. It is further validation of the work by Benveniste and Montagnier. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html
4. Chaplin’s article “Homeopathy.” This is a must read by this respected scientist from a material science perspective in direct and well referenced terms. Much easier to read than Roy, itdoes have somehills toclimb, isconservative and even questionable in some parts and even somewhat chicken in other parts, but it is far from the incontinent denials of the usual poseurs who litter the discussion with their detritus. In other words, you gotta read it, so what if it doesn’t equal Hahnemann, it isn’t Hahnemann. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html
5. Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier’s report, “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.” This is the science experiment of the century. Well, it isn’tmuch of a centruy yet, so make it the science report of the previous millennia as well, although it is built on the back of Beneveniste, (St. Jacques). WHat amkes it so jaw dropping is that it is a dfetion to homeoapthy of the highest order. It leaves the Evil Empire of Pharmacide led by fakir James Randi peeing their pants. You see, this study reports on the most significant testing done to date on the observable electrodynamic action and phsyics of homeopathic remedies by a scientist of the highest credentials. These tests reproduce findings by Jacques Benveniste that reveal a detectable signal from the structuring of homeopathic dilutes. They also reveal the Schumann Resonance to be the most plausible origin of the signal, and the ability of the nano crystalloids in water alcohol solvents to transmit unique liquid aqueous structuring electromagnetically to a separate container without material contact, supporting the claim of homeopaths for the reality of “imponderabilia,” remedies made by exposure to radiation and electromagnetic fields, such as Sol, Rainbow and X-ray. The case for homeopathy is not complete without this study. https://commerce.metapress.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=byqfa245i3bq5t554jwzsd45&sh=www.springerlink.com
6. Experiments by Stanford professor William Tiller that show that light shown through a solution of silver colloids has antiseptic qualities. Tiller is another udnerecognized foundation in the science ofhomeopathy. He is now an honaroary board member ofthe American Medical College of Homeopathy, which is training medical doctors to be homeopaths. (Good luck, you can also train dogs to talk) TILLER: On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics, and Homeopathy http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.685 ;
7. The 2007 Witt review of biochemical studies. “The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature.” While the Members of Parliament are doing their ridiculous evidence on homeoapthy and asking paid hacks for he allopathic pharmacetuical industry to pony up evidence for homeopathy with meta-jokes like Shang, the Witt review is quietly dozing in the corner. Unlike meta analyses which extract conclusive opinions for the clinical efficacy of homeopathy from cherry picked studies, the Witt review provides an exhaustive report on all biochemical testing of homeopathic high dilutes between 1933 and 2007. It uses a clear preset method of evaluating a scientific study. Did it have controls, how did it use them, did it clearly state its objectives, how did it handle the contamination issue? Andso forth. Each test is tranked by established criteria and values. In doing so the Witt review debunks several putative myths about homeopathy, the piggest putative myth being that Benveniste conducted the only biochemical testing of homeopathics. Wrong. According to Witt, it can be easily seen that Benveniste’s controversial basophil degranulation test (Davenas, pub’d in Nature) was the third replication of that test, and that since then has been successfully done over two dozen times, most notably a multi centered trial (Belon). Witt also shows that there are biochemical tests other than the basophil degranulation, and contrary to popular belief, there are biochemical tests that have been replicated that are of the highest quality, most notably Glasgow’s William E. Boyd. And look at Hirst and laugh. Hirst was rated by Witt a perfect score, but Hirst couldn’t believe what he saw, so he attributed the effect to some unknown cause. We win again. Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TF, Baumgartner S, Willich SN http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544864
8. Agrohomeopathy. Perhaps this is the most amazing of all. In one swell foop agrohomeoapthy quicckly and most exhaustively provides the most conclusive evidence that high dilutes have biological effects. Plants make excellent test subjects an definitely prove that homeopathics are not placebos. There have been a growing number of tests that prove it, such as work done at the University of Bologna, and a review of the literature: Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological models and in field trials: a critical review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19945678?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=And then there is the amazing and exhaustive work done by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj, exemplified in the first widely published volume on agrohomeopathy “Homeopathy for Farm and Garden” http://www.minimum.com/reviews/Farm-garden.htm
I do have one serious criticism of extraordinarymedicine.com. I would hesitate to tell people that homeopathic remedies are safe in role of “complementary medicine,” as the website does: “Homeopathy is not exclusive and can be used along with conventional and other complementary medical treatments. There is no need for a patient to choose one over the other.” Oh yeah? There is no evidence that I am aware that this is completely true. maybe in some cases with some kinds of treatments, but the authors of etraordinary meicine don’tseemto realize something, and that is that allopathy can be dangerously conflicting modlaities. One can dynamize the ill effects of the other, and Kaviraj backs me up on this, so I have to insist that allopapthy and homeopathy don’t mix, andI call upon our colleagues, if I can be so bold to call them that, to strenuously support us in this statement. I believe that high potencies can attenuate the system to the action of allopathic drugs and make those drugs even more deadly than they are.
Look . . homeopathics elicit the same symptoms, right? And this is why if a potnecy is too high or given too often, it will cause an aggravation, the symptoms will get worse. Okay, and what do allpathics do? They evoke other symptoms. Hahnemann coinded th word “allopathy,” and that’s what he meant, and he really meantwhat he said, forit is the egregious nature of allpathy that spawnedhomeopathy. You see? Allo means other, and the suffering caused by overdosing with dangerous drugs byallpathy is a direct and open contradiction to the ancient Hippocratic Oath, to give no known dangerous drug, anthat’s eactly what allopaths were doing then and that’s exactly what allopaths are doing now. They are neither curingnor treating disease, they are creating disease. Thedonger of homeoapthy is that to add it to chemo therapy could very well superchage the action ofthe allopathic drug, such asused in chemotherapy if by chance it so happens to be working in concert.
Mammals and birds have complex, electromagnetic homeostatic systems that must maintain a constant body temperature and pH, as well as other indices, some of which are probably not even known. To address a symptom the body has to allocate enegetic resources in order to meet the challenge and bring the body back into homeostasis. The system can be aeasily confused as to what that homeostasis should be.
Experienced homeopaths are well aware of aggravations. So how bad can an aggravation be? According to Kent, the use of the wrong remedy can graft symptoms onto the patient for life! (Thuja) Repeated high potency doses of Belladonna, I believe, may have the ability to put a person in a mental hospital. Ultra high potencies should not be used on the elderly, infants or people with compromised immune systems. Remedies should be chosen with the utmost care. Twice I have had unnerving reactions to Silica. The literature provides examples of animals being debilitated by repeated doses of high dilutes. And what are provings? The literature contains reports of people who have experienced symptoms from provings up to a year after taking one 30c pellet.
Hahnemann developed the LM series because of aggravations from potencies anyone can now buy OTC.
We are told to stop administering the remedy as soon as there is a reaction to it, yet I see repeated examples of overdosing in subjects I talk to who have been under the care of homeopaths. Our opponents are not true skeptics. They are fools, careless pseudoscientists, and Idon’t mean that to simply be derogatory, I mean that to be insightful. They don’t know what they’re doing. They’re ignorant.
To tell people that these remedies are completely safe is irresponsible and shows inexperience and ignorance of the literature that supports their use.
(If you’renot confused yet, also note carefully here that biochemical studies of homeopathics challenge the underlying assumption of homeopaths that they are treating the patient’s dynamis, not the disease. )
Stunts such as those done by James Randi and the 10^23 organization engender a high disregard for the serious and cautious use of high potencies. If they can cure, then they can logically also kill. I know of potentially two deaths caused by homeopathic remedies, one from the careless mixing of allopathy and homeopathy, and the other from injudicial use. I would especially suggest that anyone who is dealing with tumors not receive homeopathic treatment in conjunction with palliative allpathic chemical systemics.
I suggest that the safety and complemenatry clauses be struck. Otherwise, congratulations for a brilliant piece of work.
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)
503- 819 – 7777